It's trumps house now. He can declassify any info on such wiretapping. The fact that he hasn't suggests one of two things:1. He made it up2. He was/is under investigation for serious enough crimes to warrant a wiretap.

Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

There is simply no provision under U.S. law, above and beyond a FISA warrant, Title III action or direct presidential intervention certified by the attorney general that would permit Flynn's conversations with the Russian ambassador to be recorded, evaluated and acted on by U.S. government officials such as Yates. The mere fact that a transcript of Flynn's phone conversations exists represents a violation of U.S. law. That U.S. government officials accessed these transcripts and acted on them in an official capacity expands the scope and scale of this legal transgression by an order of magnitude. The leaking of the existence and contents of the Flynn transcript to the media by U.S. government officials for political purposes is as reprehensible as it is illegal, and represents a frontal assault on the very foundation of American society, grounded as it is in the principle of protecting individual civil liberties.

The notion that U.S. government officials would knowingly and willfully violate laws designed to protect constitutionally protected rights should rightfully outrage everyone. That these violations were committed for partisan political purposes designed to undo the lawful results of a binding election (for instance, by undermining the appointment of a controversial and unpopular national security adviser) represents an attack on the very democratic processes that define the United States.

The transcript of Flynn's telephone call with Kislyak needs to be forensically reverse-engineered, so that the entire chain of custody, from collector to consumer, and every step in between, is carefully vetted and assessed. At a minimum, such an investigation should produce indictments of all officials who knowingly violated Flynn's constitutional right to privacy by possessing and releasing to the media information that was unlawfully obtained and retained by U.S. authorities. At most, the investigation will uncover an abuse of authority to use illegally acquired intelligence in a manner that would make the Watergate scandal pale by comparison. It also could uncover wrongdoing by Obama if he had in any way, shape or form been briefed on the existence of the Flynn transcript and failed to suppress and investigate its existence.

It seems likely that the transcript of Flynn's phone call with Kislyak was produced from a collection activity operating outside FBI control, and probably operating outside U.S. soil--for instance, from the Dominican Republic itself. The U.S. intelligence community, in coordination with a supporting government's intelligence service, has the capacity to intercept Flynn's phone calls in a manner that does not implicate either the FISA framework or other intelligence collection activities subjected to legal and legislative oversight.

Your source.Interestingly enough, no one at all is backing Trumps nutty rant about Obama haveing "tapped his phones". Like Nixon? No Donald. Pull it together.

There is simply no provision under U.S. law, above and beyond a FISA warrant, Title III action or direct presidential intervention certified by the attorney general that would permit Flynn's conversations with the Russian ambassador to be recorded, evaluated and acted on by U.S. government officials such as Yates. The mere fact that a transcript of Flynn's phone conversations exists represents a violation of U.S. law.

First, he was talking to the Russian ambassador, who is an agent of a foreign power. Agents of foreign powers are acceptable foreign intelligence targets and the government could have a warrant to surveil Kislyak under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) since 1978.

Next, phone calls are wiretappable. Congress ensured that would be true with the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (CALEA).

Further, while wiretapping in the criminal context involves only recording when the targets talk about illegal activity, foreign intelligence wiretapping is comprehensive. All conversations are collected and important bits mined out after the fact.

So when Flynn talks on the telephone to Kislyak, it's practically certain he's going to get recorded since Kislyak is being recorded.

The intelligence jargon for this is "incidental collection," which means, among other things, that Americans' communications get collected when we talk to targets. It is amazing that Flynn, who once served as Assistant Director of National Intelligence, didn't know that.

Nunez, as chair of the intelligence committee, should understand this as well.

Some have suggested that, because Flynn is an American citizen, minimization procedures should have protected his privacy. Minimization procedures are policies which govern how electronic surveillance of United States persons may be used and disclosed.

While different minimization procedures apply depending on the legal authority under which the government conducted the surveillance, as a general matter, the procedures require that a U.S. person's name be redacted and replaced with "(U.S. Person)" to protect that individual's privacy.

However, an exception to that rule is if the U.S. person's name is necessary to understand the foreign intelligence information or assess its importance. Flynn's identity was essential to understanding why his conversation with Kislyak was important.

The author is a lawyer specializing in civil liberties (she's Director of Civil Liberties at the Stanford Center for Internet and Society.) No doubt a manipulative bitch.

The author of your reference is not a lawyer. FWIW he is a felon. Wikipedia:

Quote

Charges included "unlawful contact with a minor, criminal use of a communications facility, corruption of minors, indecent exposure, possessing instruments of crime, criminal attempt and criminal solicitation".[50] Ritter rejected a plea bargain, testified in his trial and was found guilty of all but the criminal attempt count in a Monroe County, Pennsylvania courtroom on April 14, 2011.[3][51] In October 2011 he received a sentence of one and a half to five and a half years in prison.[51] He was paroled in September 2014.[52]

Just as a general precaution I'd expect to be recorded when talking to the Russian ambassador, just so when they turn around and say "you totally said we could put some nukes in Cuba" I can say "lol nope, and here are the tapes to prove it".

There is simply no provision under U.S. law, above and beyond a FISA warrant, Title III action or direct presidential intervention certified by the attorney general that would permit Flynn's conversations with the Russian ambassador to be recorded, evaluated and acted on by U.S. government officials such as Yates. The mere fact that a transcript of Flynn's phone conversations exists represents a violation of U.S. law. That U.S. government officials accessed these transcripts and acted on them in an official capacity expands the scope and scale of this legal transgression by an order of magnitude. The leaking of the existence and contents of the Flynn transcript to the media by U.S. government officials for political purposes is as reprehensible as it is illegal, and represents a frontal assault on the very foundation of American society, grounded as it is in the principle of protecting individual civil liberties.

The notion that U.S. government officials would knowingly and willfully violate laws designed to protect constitutionally protected rights should rightfully outrage everyone. That these violations were committed for partisan political purposes designed to undo the lawful results of a binding election (for instance, by undermining the appointment of a controversial and unpopular national security adviser) represents an attack on the very democratic processes that define the United States.

Lol. Yeah, that's bullshit. And even you, dave, can figure it out.

How many people does it take to have a phone conversation?

ETA: I see JonF already linked to an explanation for you. Let's see if you can read and understand it.

Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

So we have a SOP of recording ambassadors' phone calls and thus you'd end up recording a whole bunch of American citizens as a result, from pizza restaurants all the way up to the POTUS, a practise that, regardless of the ethics the foreign nationals involved probably understand happens, and almost certainly return the favour in their country, and this is somehow the same as wiretapping US citizens talking to other US citizens.

Pingu, you won't get anything rational out of Dave about Trump. Trump has been fundamentalised along with The Flood and his bizarre takes on agriculture, animals, ecosystems, raw milk, and all the other bullshit he's taken into his head and Hawkinsised into his very own One True Scripture. from those tenets he will not budge, contrary evidence be damned.

I have been defending trump about this, in an ironic way, ever since it occurred to me he might not have known he was accusing obama of a crime. it would not surprise me if he thought this was how wiretapping ordinarily happens: the president says "wiretap that guy" and they go wiretap him.

as always, the most underappreciated thing about trump is that he doesn't know anything about the presidency.

Can you present the argument you are trying to make in your own words, Dave? Because I really don't get your point.

What do you think the message is here?

What I gleaned is the following ...

The fact that the Flinn transcript exists and was leaked to the press means that it is very likely that Obama's CIA Director, John Brennan, obtained the transcript via back channels from British intelligence and leaked it for the purpose of trying to undermine Trump's new presidency.

That's my summary in my own words from what I gleaned from this article.

I have been defending trump about this, in an ironic way, ever since it occurred to me he might not have known he was accusing obama of a crime. it would not surprise me if he thought this was how wiretapping ordinarily happens: the president says "wiretap that guy" and they go wiretap him.

as always, the most underappreciated thing about trump is that he doesn't know anything about the presidency.

I think you may be right. And the more he finds out the more he is shocked and outraged by how things actually work.